I live in a country whose success in the post-WW2 world was arguable to a great extent due to it not participating in that world war, and thus not having to spend lots of money on rebuilding the country afterwards. This is not something we should boast too much about, since the "neutrality" was built on compromises such as allowing german troop transports through the swedish nation to and from Norway, and perhaps transports that ended up at concentration camps as well.

It is an example of "peace" boosting the economy, but also of how a passive stance to conflicts might not be so pretty.

....
It is an example of "peace" boosting the economy, but also of how a passive stance to conflicts might not be so pretty.

/Stefan

I will agree that humanity is so deeply flawed that peace is not always and categorically preferable to war. But violence/war should always be the very last recourse and resorted to only in the necessary defense of the innocent. I.e. in direct response to the willful and actual wounding of the innocent. I think people should literally vomit on anyone who asserts that violence should be used more readily.

EDIT:

substituted "that violence should be used more readily"
for
"otherwise"_________________The question is not whether they can talk or reason, but whether they can suffer. -- Jeremy BenthamLast edited by bachus on Tue Apr 03, 2007 3:54 pm; edited 1 time in total

I think you are right. We don't really need another cabinet level department. We just need to have people in the State Department that think peace is more desirable than war.

That was my first reaction. But on reflection I think some would look at US history and say that system has not worked at all well for over 200 years and ask why we should think it will work any better in the future._________________The question is not whether they can talk or reason, but whether they can suffer. -- Jeremy Bentham

I live in a country whose success in the post-WW2 world was arguable to a great extent due to it not participating in that world war, and thus not having to spend lots of money on rebuilding the country afterwards. This is not something we should boast too much about, since the "neutrality" was built on compromises such as allowing german troop transports through the swedish nation to and from Norway, and perhaps transports that ended up at concentration camps as well.

It is an example of "peace" boosting the economy, but also of how a passive stance to conflicts might not be so pretty.

I think the world is better off because Sweden stayed neutral. It would have been a disaster if the USA had remained neutral though. Sweden saved lots of people from the camps. They were a neutral ally.

Right now, everyone is neutral about Darfur. This is not only a tragedy, but a disgrace._________________--Howard
my music and other stuff

Right now, everyone is neutral about Darfur. This is not only a tragedy, but a disgrace.

A disgrace not only on all who could act but won't but on the United Nations, its structure and mandate and on our species as a whole._________________The question is not whether they can talk or reason, but whether they can suffer. -- Jeremy Bentham

I think some would look at US history and say that system has not worked at all well for over 200 years and ask why we should think it will work any better in the future.

Some are pessimists, some are optimists, and some are in between. Who gets more accomplished?

I'm not sure what you are saying here. Do you mean that you think that advancing a proposal for a department of Peace is pessimistic? Or that an optimist will happily endure another 200 years before trying something different? _________________The question is not whether they can talk or reason, but whether they can suffer. -- Jeremy Bentham

You said, "[the US] system has not worked at all well for over 200 years". I agree and disagree.

There are lots of ways to improve the system, but improving the awareness of the people is the most important thing. I'm 100% for peace. I think it is more productive to try to convince people that peace is better than war rather than trying to convince them that we need more bureaucracy to get peace. A lot of pro-peace types are against big government and excessive government regulation._________________--Howard
my music and other stuff

You said, "[the US] system has not worked at all well for over 200 years". I agree and disagree.

Before my neighbors run me out of town for being a terrar-ist coddler I think it's important to maintain the context of that statement, which was the effectiveness of the roles of the Department of State and the Department of Defense in keeping the number of wars in which we become engaged to the absolutely necessary minimum. And in that context it is hard for me to see that the system has worked at all well.

I do find a lot to which I object in H.R. 808 And I don't see how it could pass. But on pragmatic grounds I think raising the idea and discussing it, would in the long term, be beneficial. Hmmm... does that make me the optimist _________________The question is not whether they can talk or reason, but whether they can suffer. -- Jeremy Bentham

Yes, but I think you can debate in what way. The US did make a huge difference but not in the way that the US likes to think it did. On the Allied side there was the Russian military might as well as the analytics of the UK's Bletchly park. As a Dutchman I should mention the Canadian forces but realy; by the time the overseas allies got involved it was almost over (otherwise there wouldn't've been the need for the US to get involved.) It was clear that Russia could defeat the Nazi's and create a Communist Europe. A disaster to be sure, but so is a Capitalist Europe right here right now or any other alternative I can see.

The US was basically what amounts to a tipping factor, as I see it, that did tip the scales earlier then they otherwise would've but you can talk about wether that realy was a action against the Axis, I think it was predominantly a gesture towards Russia. Camps, patritiotic boyscouts, pupulistic nationalism, mass-fabricated cars for private ownership as a political baragining chip; the US "elite" was filled with proud members of the Nazi party and the Nazi party was based heavily on US philosophy. I strongly feel that right now we are all living and driving Hitler's dream. Driving home in your car over the highway to your family, your dinner and finally to the propaganda on your TV set; that's Hitler's dream. "If you're riding alone you are riding with Hitler"... It's true but we don't care since we drive the American way of driving a larger car then our neighbour, VolksWagen regardles of the brand.

Most defiantely it would've been a disaster without the US taking explicid sides but wasn't it a disaster now? Wasn't it a disaster that the Alied forces threw the homosexuals from the camps straight into prissons because they agreed with the Nazi's on that point? (they did, you know, and they did) Wasn't it a disaster that the US involvement in WWII made them create camps (for the US Japanese)? Isn't it a disaster that the US liberation of Europe was used as a launchpad for marketing US products (particularly the door to door marketing of Coca Cola (then still containing Cocaine, I think, and the first bottle given away for free) a very short time after the "liberation", thus leading to the erosion of European culture to the point where there is hardly a popular film that's not from the US in European theatres anymore? (especially considering the express purpose of Hollywood as a means for creating a "unique" US culure)). Wasn't the drawing out of the Pacific theatre in order to be able to show of The Bomb a disaster?

Quote:

Right now, everyone is neutral about Darfur. This is not only a tragedy, but a disgrace.

It is. Claiming "neutraility" is very much a political act. Inaction is a political act. Not reading is a politcal act. Keeping silent is a political act. As Atari Teenage Riot put it (as much as I hate to quote them); "you should feel guilty if you're just watching"._________________Kassen

Is there really an anxiety in the US regarding the UN? This is very interesting. Does really US sovereignity mean global asset management based on US interests? _________________A Charity Pantomime in aid of Paranoid Schizophrenics descended into chaos yesterday when someone shouted, "He's behind you!"

The United States has a Department of State, which promotes America's interests overseas. And it also has a Department of Defense, which fights for them. So why not create a Department of Peace, to promote creative ways to avoid conflicts?

But.. we are talking about US interests here, so wouldn´t this just be business as ususal? It would be very unlikely that a a Department of Peace could mess with US interests and policies._________________A Charity Pantomime in aid of Paranoid Schizophrenics descended into chaos yesterday when someone shouted, "He's behind you!"

Absolutely! Every body knows those damn black UN heelicopters come out at night and UN degenerates do mutilations (and god knows what other unspeakable things) to our wholesome all'meriacn cattle. Seen actual pichurs of it._________________The question is not whether they can talk or reason, but whether they can suffer. -- Jeremy Bentham

Makes me wonder what certain US citizens really mean by the term patriotic.

Typically the expression seems intended to mean something like "better then you". Considdering that patriotism typically only refers to being proud about a certain part of the country it probably means "consersvatism" too as well as a distrust of non-white ethnicities and non-hetrosexual preferences._________________Kassen

Isn't it a disaster that the US liberation of Europe was used as a launchpad for marketing US products (particularly the door to door marketing of Coca Cola (then still containing Cocaine, I think, and the first bottle given away for free) a very short time after the "liberation", thus leading to the erosion of European culture to the point where there is hardly a popular film that's not from the US in European theatres anymore? (especially considering the express purpose of Hollywood as a means for creating a "unique" US culure)).

Give me a break. Cocaine was removed from Coca Cola years before WW II. There was never much in the first place, but it was completely removed by 1929.

Many of the creative people in Hollywood during the 30's and 40's were Europeans who fled Hitler's rise to power. Most were liberals who used the movies to fire up American emotions to get involved in the war. Hollywood IS European.

Racism, hatred, violence, colonialism and militarism seem pretty much to be a big part of European culture. Maybe erosion is good.

There is nothing good that can come from exaggeration and degrading other people. Europeans should know this as well as anyone else._________________--Howard
my music and other stuff

Makes me wonder what certain US citizens really mean by the term patriotic.

Typically the expression seems intended to mean something like "better than you". Considdering that patriotism typically only refers to being proud about a certain part of the country it probably means "consersvatism" too as well as a distrust of non-white ethnicities and non-hetrosexual preferences.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum

Please support our site. If you click through and buy from our affiliate partners, we earn a small commission.